International Assistance: requests for the property until 1992

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1992

The Bureau was informed of the building proposals in the buffer zone along the Saint-Lawrence River and the impact they would have on the views across the River. ICOMOS was critical about the consultation process and the design, and specifically of the failure of the many levels of government to work together. The Bureau also learnt that four other prominent persons in Quebec had expressed similar concerns. The Bureau noted with concern the incompatibility between such activities and the aspiration of Quebec City concerning the World Heritage Cities Secretariat. The creation of an interdepartmental committee to co-ordinate federal government inputs to the issue was considered useful. The Bureau requested the Chairman to write to the three concerned levels of the Canadian Government (municipal, provincial and federal) expressing its concerns and requested that ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre obtain a detailed report on the status of the building proposals for submission to the Committee in December 1992.

The Permanent Delegate of Canada to UNESCO was informed of the Bureau's concerns and recommendations by letter of 10 September 1992 and detailed information regarding the building proposals is awaited. ICOMOS will be visiting the site in early November 1992 and will present a report to the Committee.

[oral report by ICOMOS]

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1992

Adopted

Draft Decision

16 BUR VI.60

Quebec Historic Area (Canada)

The Bureau was informed of the building proposals in the buffer zone along the Saint-Lawrence River and the impact they would have on the views to and from the River. ICOMOS was critical about the consultation process and the design and specifically of the failure of the many levels of government to work together. The Bureau also learnt that four other prominent persons in Quebec had expressed similar concerns. The Bureau noted with concern the incompatibility between such activities and the aspiration of Quebec City concerning the World Heritage Cities Secretariat. The creation of an interdepartmental committee to coordinate federal government inputs to the issue was considered useful. The Bureau requested the Chairman to write to the three concerned levels of the Canadian government (municipal, provincial and federal) expressing its concerns and requested that ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre obtain a detailed report on the status of the building proposals for submission to the Committee in December 1992.

16 COM VIII

SOC: Quebec Historic Area (Canada)

Quebec Historic Area (Canada)

In response to information conveyed by the press as well as by groups and individuals, the ICOMOS Representative informed the Committee of the task assigned to him by the World Heritage Centre to examine, with the authorities in Quebec, two construction projects (one for the IMAX cinema and one for a naval academy) both on the land located immediately outside the protected area. The ICOMOS report on this matter and the additional explanations given by him gave rise to two statements, the first by the Observer from Canada and the second by the Representative from the City of Quebec. Both of them thanked ICOMOS for the quality of the work carried out and noted that the manner in which this matter was dealt with was proof of the effectiveness of the Convention. The Delegate of Tunisia brought to the attention of the Committee the position in favour of preservation of the historic site publicly expressed by the Mayor of the City of Quebec during the meeting of the Mayors of World Heritage Cities which took place on 23 and 24 November 1992. He recommended to the Committee that it strongly support the proposals contained in the ICOMOS report. The Committee approved this proposal.

* :
The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).